Spurious BA CancellationsBack to Forum
Anonymous15 May 2010
It is reported today (P&J 15 May) that BA has repeated its habit of cancelling scottish flights for its own operational convenience. Blaming a ‘dust cloud’ for 2 cancellations to ABZ and one to EDI when these airports were open according to local travel information systems and being used as normal by other airlines.
BA accused of misleading travellers on cancellations
ASH BLAMED FOR GROUNDED ABERDEEN FLIGHTS BUT OTHER CARRIERS UNAFFECTED
By Ryan Crighton and Declan Harte
Bad luck is tolerable.; corporate lies are NOT. Can we ever trust BA again?15 May 2010
Just flew from Edinburgh this morning. I saw the LCY embraer on the ground and also witnessed a BA LGW land and BA LHR take off. Maybe the Icelandic dust cloud was a bit cross and decided to be selective about which flights it would affect. I did remember thinking the cancellation sounded quite random when hearing it announced and yes they simply cited “operational reasons”.15 May 2010
I think you mean spurious, rather than “spurrous”.
But the next bout of impending doom is upon us, and being reported by the BBC:
So this may not be all that spurious; there may have been a technical problem, or any other reason for the delay. Without being party to the actual reason, it is difficult to make an informed judgement.15 May 2010
Oh VK you pedantic Troll….. Impending doom, rehearsed by BA today (just in case we need practice at cancelling flights – should be expert by now, surely?).
And three aircraft, at 2 airports, with ‘tech faults’ – non-tolerable defects – I suggest customer non-tolerance is being tested. And there should be a public service obligation to stop this behaviour.15 May 2010
Any cancellation is a complete and utter pain. I think the problem we suffer in the UK is that companies are frightened sometimes to say exactly why something is not operating. Using generic terms as “operational reasons” as to why it is cancelled or delayed.
It is not just airlines, trains, buses and ferries are the same. But that aside, what exactly is a “non-tolerable defect”?15 May 2010
Nigel – I think a “tolerable defect” is where a plane is knackered, but not too knackered to fly and put passenger safety at risk; and a “non-tolerable defect” is where it’s too knackered for comfort!
Talking about passenger information on delays, etc, the best I ever saw was at Nanjing Airport a couple of years ago. It said (and I wish I could post the photo I took on here):
“Flight MHxxx to Schenzen in delayed until xxx.
Due to some reason.”
Utterly logical and totally true!
Simon15 May 2010
Thanks for the clarification Simon, do you per chance get Transit magazine? In the latest edition is a very good destination display on an Australian train, inside back cover!
I always liked the honest of the announcement at Newark many years ago, apologising for the delay to the Denver flight the announcement was that it was due to the cockpit window having to be replaced and that if you looked out the window at gate XX you will see the “mainteance guys” repairing it. On looking out as I was passing there was these “guys” occasionally looking and giving cheesy grins and waves.
Nigel15 May 2010
So to summarise this discussion so far – BA are not only liars, but unimaginative liars. It will therefore be OK for BA to continue to lie about real reasons for cancelling connections to places they don’t regard as important (which we hope will never be used to justify service reductions).
And it’s all ok if it’s accompanied by cheery craik – maybe WW’s employment is secure, just needs to find its level?15 May 2010
I know for a fact that the internal BA requirements for ash cloud concentration and the planes allowed proximity to it are more stringent than those set by the CAA. On the day in question the ‘high density’ ash cloud was within BA’s buffer zone therefore the Aberdeen flights didn’t operate until either very late or where cancelled.15 May 2010
Remember Old Age, there are always 2 sides to every story – so until you know both for certain, go easy on calling people liars. We run an open forum but like to think that contributors have factual information from all sides before “firing the rockets, which invariably fall short of the target”!15 May 2010
My information came from a published source, referenced in the first posting, and which has yet to be refuted.
My motivation is to stimulate discussion, and facilitate the pooling of information, so that truth, however inconvenient, will coalesce.
In the long term the awareness that bad (or good) publicity can result will improve the performance of our services.16 May 2010